Legal Opinion
State v. Richcreek
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided January 21, 1997No. CR-96-0224-PRPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FELDMAN, Justice.
Daniel Richcreek (Defendant) appeals his conviction for theft of an automobile. The sole issue before the court of appeals was whether the trial court erred when it refused to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop of the vehicle Defendant was driving. The majority of the court of appeals affirmed. The dissenting judge concluded the evidence should have been suppressed. We agree with the dissent and reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 9, 1994, Scottsdale Police Officer Robert DeHaven (DeHaven) investigated a one-car, roll-over accident that occurred…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. BoxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. WymanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- State v. AltieriArizona Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.